https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234178 A retracted statement of the Director, recorded under section 14, could not by itself sustain a finding of clandestine removal because it lacked independent, cogent corroboration. On that footing, confiscation and penalty were unjustified, and the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. Once the clearances were within the exemption limit and the basis for clandestine removal failed, Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 had no application. The impugned orders were therefore set aside, and relief from confiscation and penalty followed. en-us Wed, 07 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Jun 2013 05:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234178 A retracted statement of the Director, recorded under section 14, could not by itself sustain a finding of clandestine removal because it lacked independent, cogent corroboration. On that footing, confiscation and penalty were unjustified, and the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. Once the clearances were within the exemption limit and the basis for clandestine removal failed, Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 had no application. The impugned orders were therefore set aside, and relief from confiscation and penalty followed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 07 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234178